Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
2.20s
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2025
This statutory language has been held to clearly establish that 20 Title II of the ADA is inapplicable to the federal government, its agencies, and its officers and 21 employees.” … He also 22 fails to state a claim under § 504 of the RA because the federal government is immune from 23 monetary damages, see Lane v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSteffey v. Affirm Loan Services, LLC
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 2024
If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 26 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 27 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the 17 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 18 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 19
Cited 0 timesUnknown295 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2003
The Medicaid Act is clearly intended to give states discretion and flexibility in setting reimbursement rates, within the limits of federal law. … The Department of Health Services is dismissed from CIV-S-03-2110 on the basis of 11th Amendment immunity. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 .
Reversed on other grounds by Clayworth v. Bonta, 140 F. App'x 677 (2005)Cited 17 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 27, 2023
However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 7 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 24 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 25 factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Page v. County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2025
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 13 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 14 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … Plaintiff also does not allege sufficient facts to establish an abuse of process 23 claim against Moseley.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Stuckey v. State of California
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2020
States and state 26 agencies are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute and are entitled to immunity under 27 the 11th Amendment. Gilbreath v. … Lewis, 217 F.3d 23 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). 24 To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on indifference to medical needs, a 25 plaintiff must establish that
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 19, 2022
Mere negligence on the part of a prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but 21 rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton. … April 20, 2006) (granting qualified immunity to defendants when prisoner slipped and fell in puddle of water resulting from leaky roof known to defendants), aff'd 19
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 20, 2024
Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or 5 produced. 6 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: … This provision is not intended to modify 2 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 3 production without prior privilege review.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMendonsa v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2024
If only a portion 12 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 13 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 14 … If only a portion or portions of the material 22 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 23 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDajuan Key v. United States of America, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2026
Id. 7 District courts must deny requests for mandatory injunctions unless the law and facts clearly 8 favor a moving party. Id. The Court will not grant such requests in doubtful cases. … complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 14 malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 15 relief from a defendant who is immune
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2025
The Court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless 20 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Further Leave to Amend Would Be Futile 17 Notwithstanding the Court’s earlier grant of leave to amend, Plaintiff failed to file his 18 amended complaint within the deadline established by the Court
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2026
In the alternative, defendant Chaudhry claims that she is 20 entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Defendants CDCR and Dr. … Chaudhry on 22 plaintiff’s free exercise claim and declines to address her qualified immunity arguments. 23 II. RLUIPA Analysis 24 A.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAlimena v. Vericrest Financial, Inc.
964 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2013
‘establish a complete causal relationship’ between the alleged misrepresentations and the harm claimed to have resulted therefrom.” Mirkin v. Wasserman (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1082, 1092 , . 23 Cal. … I understand that after I sign and return two copies of this Plan to the Lender, the Lender will send me a signed copy of this Plan if I qualify for the Offer or will send me written notice that I do not qualify for the Offer
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 8, 2024
Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 12 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 13 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent … The question at this stage is whether the state court 24 reasonably applied clearly established federal law to the facts before it. Id. at 181-182.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 2025
Accordingly, Sheriff Ferrara, in his individual capacity is entitled to 18 summary judgment on this claim.”). 19 Though Plaintiff addresses qualified immunity in his opposition, … the Court declines 20 to address this issue because Ferrara did not raise qualified immunity in his summary 21 judgment motion and because there has been no finding of a constitutional violation. 22 See Def.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 25, 2020
ADA 17 If plaintiff is attempting to state a claim that a public program or service violated the ADA, 18 he must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with … Plaintiff is advised that 3 in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant 4 took that violated his constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRoeder v. Kautz Vineyards, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2025
C. 6 To qualify for this leave, the employee needed to provide notice. … § 259 of the Portal-to-Portal Act grants employers immunity under 2 the FLSA if they relied in good faith on administrative regulations published by the DOL.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2026
In the alternative, defendant Chaudhry claims that she is 20 entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Defendants CDCR and Dr. … Chaudhry on 22 plaintiff’s free exercise claim and declines to address her qualified immunity arguments. 23 II. RLUIPA Analysis 24 A.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 11, 2025
The California Supreme Court has 20 clearly stated that the fundamental public policy exception is only applicable in 21 actions for wrongful discharge. Miklosy v. … Defendants are not 9 moving to dismiss these claims based on procedural defenses and immunities and 10 thus have a “heavy burden” to prove that Defendants Hilton and McCullah were 11 fraudulently joined.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2026
For the reasons stated in those cases, 7 Petitioner has established that he has a likelihood of success on the merits. … The balance of the equities and public interest are merged as the Government 18 is the non-moving party, and these factors clearly weigh in Petitioner’s favor. See 19 Melendres v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna